3 vues

Transféré par José Luis García Contreras

Descripción de dos métodos para la predicción de fracturas hidráulicas así como su propagación en medios porosos saturados para su utilización en ingeniería y en la industria petrolera.

- edp-num
- 2013 Geomechanical Principles for Unconventional Resources
- FEP_2nd_Edition_4th_Printing.pdf
- FEMM
- Closure of Natural Fractures SPE-153609-MS-P
- Dual-Norm Least-Squares Finite Element Methods for Hyperbolic Problems
- FAQs OF FEM
- Stabilized Finite Element Methods by Stokes
- If Em
- homework2.docx
- Damage Tolerance
- Connor Dissertation
- MD Nastran 2010 EFEA User Guide
- BeFo Rapport 124 Web
- Paper3
- Coke Drum Failure Mechanism and Life Assessment Research
- 7 Papanastasiou P Hydraulic fracturing.pdf
- HF NOTES
- Bucky Leverett Solution
- 6255.pdf

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

propagation in saturated porous media using EFG mesh-less method

Mohammad Norouz Oliaei a,⇑, Ali Pak b, Kenichi Soga c

a

Department of Civil Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 14115-143, Iran

b

Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran 11365-9313, Iran

c

Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The details of the Element Free Galerkin (EFG) method are presented with the method being applied to a

Received 30 October 2012 study on hydraulic fracturing initiation and propagation process in a saturated porous medium using

Received in revised form 15 July 2013 coupled hydro-mechanical numerical modelling. In this EFG method, interpolation (approximation) is

Accepted 3 September 2013

based on nodes without using elements and hence an arbitrary discrete fracture path can be modelled.

Available online 12 October 2013

The numerical approach is based upon solving two governing partial differential equations of equilib-

rium and continuity of pore water simultaneously. Displacement increment and pore water pressure

Keywords:

increment are discretized using the same EFG shape functions. An incremental constrained Galerkin weak

Hydraulic fracture

Propagation

form is used to create the discrete system of equations and a fully implicit scheme is used for discretiza-

Initiation tion in the time domain. Implementation of essential boundary conditions is based on the penalty

Mesh-less method. In order to model discrete fractures, the so-called diffraction method is used.

EFG Examples are presented and the results are compared to some closed-form solutions and FEM approx-

Coupled hydro-mechanical analysis imations in order to demonstrate the validity of the developed model and its capabilities. The model is

able to take the anisotropy and inhomogeneity of the material into account. The applicability of the

model is examined by simulating hydraulic fracture initiation and propagation process from a borehole

by injection of ﬂuid. The maximum tensile strength criterion and Mohr–Coulomb shear criterion are used

for modelling tensile and shear fracture, respectively. The model successfully simulates the leak-off of

ﬂuid from the fracture into the surrounding material. The results indicate the importance of pore ﬂuid

pressure in the initiation and propagation pattern of fracture in saturated soils.

Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

fracturing process. As a result, a numerical model capable of ana-

Hydraulic fracturing (HF) refers to the parting of geomaterials lysing different aspects of hydraulic fracturing can be a valuable

due to excessively high ﬂuid pressure. The most common applica- tool to overcome some uncertainties in the design of hydraulic

tion of HF is enhance oil recovery, in which increase in functional fracturing in soils. Since capturing the pattern of arbitrary fracture

permeability of the ground is achieved by the formation of perme- growth is an essential ingredient in HF modelling, a numerical

able fractures. In geotechnical engineering, HF is one of the causes scheme for modelling the hydraulic fracturing path is developed

of cracks in earth and rockﬁll dams. It is also used for grouting to in this research using a fully coupled hydro-mechanical element

create impermeable barriers or to control ground settlements. free Galerkin (EFG) mesh-less method.

In spite of the signiﬁcant advances in the technique of in situ The FEM for modelling complex problems in engineering sci-

hydraulic fracturing, its design still requires a good deal of engi- ence is well established. However, it is not without shortcomings.

neering judgment and practical experience. That is, the ability to One of them is crack propagation problems. The use of a mesh in

determine the fracture path, shape, dimensions and fracture con- modelling these problems creates difﬁculties in the treatment of

ductivities is still not fully developed. This is due to the complex discontinuities and large distortions that do not coincide with

interaction among the different mechanisms that are involved in the original mesh lines. This is an inherent weakness of FEM, which

is related to its element-based shape functions.

One solution for such a problem is remeshing the domain using

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 82884395; fax: +98 21 82884914. adaptive computational algorithm. However, projection of ﬁeld

E-mail addresses: M.Olyaei@modares.ac.ir, norooz2222@yahoo.com

variables between the meshes used in successive stages of an

(M.N. Oliaei).

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.09.001

M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266 255

analysis leads to degradation of the accuracy. For large three- is that it does not require any element connectivity data and

dimensional problems, the computational cost of remeshing at does not suffer much degradation in accuracy when nodal

each step of an analysis becomes prohibitively expensive. Further- arrangements are irregular [15]. Because of the gridless character

more, it is almost impossible to automatically remesh ﬁnite ele- of the method, a growing crack can be modelled simply by

ments for an arbitrarily growing crack. Therefore most of the extending the free surfaces in the domain which correspond to

FEM methods developed to date involve interactive analysis where the crack. This dramatically simpliﬁes the modelling of moving

the user guides the remeshing after each step of analysis [1]. cracks, since it eliminates the need for remeshing. Another

An effective solution to avoid mesh dependency is to use a advantage of the EFG method compared with the FEM is the

mesh-less method. This method does not require any element for dependent variable and its gradient are continuous in the entire

shape function construction and hence provides no connectivity domain, and hence post processing to obtain smooth gradient

between elements and nodes. The principle attractions of mesh- ﬁelds is unnecessary [15]. The shape functions obtained by the

less methods are their simpliﬁed adaptability and ability to cope EFG approximation based on nodes (not elements) are both con-

with moving boundaries and discontinuities. There are a number sistent and compatible. They are of a higher order compare to

of mesh-less (or mesh-free) methods that have been proposed in those used in the ordinary FEM, which effectively induces more

the past (e.g. [2]). accurate approximations compared to solutions obtained by a

Among these methods some of them are well known and distorted mesh in FEM.

achieved remarkable success in recent years. These methods can The main objective of this paper is to investigate the validity

be classiﬁed into two major categories based on the shape function and capability of the EFG formulation developed in this study in or-

construction approach: der to predict hydraulic fracture propagation. The coupled analysis

of soil deformation and ﬂuid ﬂow in inhomogeneous/anisotropic

i Finite integral representation methods, i.e. Smooth Particle saturated porous media is conducted. In Section 2, the EFG shape

Hydrodynamics or SPH [3,4]. function construction and the MLS approximation are brieﬂy de-

ii Finite series representation methods, i.e. the Element Free scribed. In Section 3, the weak forms are developed through a glo-

Galerkin (EFG) method [5] based on MLS (Moving Least bal equilibrium at each time-step. Then spatial variables (i.e.

Squares) and the Point Interpolation Method (PIM) [6]. displacement and pore water pressure increments) are discretized

by the same EFG shape functions. A fully implicit scheme in time

The MLS shape functions adopted in EFG are both consistent domain is used to avoid spurious ripple effect. An algorithm for

and compatible; the PIM shape functions, however, are consistent numerical solution is proposed to solve hydraulic fracture initia-

but not compatible. The SPH shape functions are compatible but tion and propagation problems based on EFG. The (so-called) dif-

not consistent near the boundary of the problem domain. Consis- fraction technique [16] is introduced for the construction of

tency is the capability of the ﬁeld function approximation method mesh-less approximation with discontinuities and nonconvex

to reproduce the ﬁelds of lowest orders of complete polynomials at boundaries. Section 4 presents the numerical analysis of 2D cou-

any point in the problem domain. Compatibility refers to the con- pled consolidation problem and crack propagation problem using

tinuity of the approximation on the boundaries between subdo- fracture mechanics. Hydraulic fracture initiation pressure and the

mains, based on which shape the functions are constructed. Both pattern of hydraulic fracture propagation are computed and results

consistency and compatibility affect the accuracy and convergence are compared to the closed-form and/or numerical (FEM) solutions

of the numerical results [2]. to examine the accuracy of the new algorithm. Conclusions are gi-

The ﬁrst attempt to apply mesh-less strategies to a soil–water ven in the ﬁnal section.

coupled problem was made by Modaressi and Aubert [7] using

the coupled EFG–FEM technique. In their work, displacements of

solid skeleton are modelled by the standard FEM, whereas ﬂuid 2. Element Free Galerkin (EFG) shape function and Moving Least

pressures are determined by element–free nodes. This attempt Squares (MLS) approximation

was followed by Murakami et al. [8] with an elasto-plastic consti-

tutive relation within the inﬁnitesimal strain theory and by Mura- The Element Free Galerkin (EFG) method establishes system of

kami and Arimoto [9] and Arimoto et al. [10] in ﬁnite strain with equations for the whole problem domain without the use of a pre-

the aim to capture the localization phenomenon in saturated soil. deﬁned mesh. To represent (not discretize) the problem domain

Murakami et al. [11] also used EFG in the analysis of a punch prob- and its boundaries, a set of nodes are scattered within the problem

lem for a soft soil foundation which has stress singularity prob- domain as well as on the boundaries. Therefore, the construction of

lems. They used the forward difference approximation (fully shape functions is only based on the nodes as shown in Fig. 1.

explicit scheme) for discretization in time domain. Wang et al. The EFG method employs the MLS approximation to construct

[12] proposed to use the backward difference approximation (fully the shape function and approximate the desired function as given

implicit scheme) in time domain to avoid spurious ripple effect. by Eq. (7) in Fig. 1. As shown in Eqs. (3) and (8) through Eq. (15) of

Oliaei et al. [13] further examined the stability criteria for coupled Fig. 1, the EFG shape function and its spatial derivatives within the

soil deformation and pore ﬂuid ﬂow problems. problem domain are constructed from two_ components: (i) a

Generally, two major approaches are possible for modelling of weight function associated with each node-ðW ðX XI ÞÞ; and (ii) a

fracture: one is considering discrete fractures and the other is the basis function usually consisting of a polynomial-(PT(X)). The

use of smeared cracking. Discrete fracture modelling is the pre- weight function is nonzero over a small subdomain around a node,

ferred technique for simulating the propagation of a small number which is called its support. The support of the weight function de-

of individual fractures over the use of smeared cracking since it ﬁnes a node’s inﬂuence domain, which is the area (or volume) over

does not suffer from stress locking, spurious modes and directional a particular node contributing to the approximation. The overlap of

bias [14]. Among available mesh-free methods, the EFG method the nodal inﬂuence domains deﬁnes the nodal connectivity. P(X) –

developed by Belytschko et al. [5] is adopted in this study for mod- Eqs. (2) and (3) in Fig. 1 – is a vector of basis functions that contains

elling of discrete hydraulic fracture propagation. most often of monomials of the lowest orders to ensure minimum

The EFG method has been used for the simulation of growing completeness.

crack problems, both static and dynamic [1,15]. Its key advan- Most mesh-less weight functions are bell-shaped and the fol-

tage for modelling this class of problems using the EFG method lowing equations have been proposed in the past [2].

256 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266

Fig. 1. EFG shape function and its derivatives construction ﬂow chart in the presented EFG code. based on the work of Belytschko et al. [5].

M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266 257

(a) Cubic spline weight function (W3): (2) Continuity equation of ﬂuid ﬂow

@ðnqÞ

8

2 2 3

r:ðqv Þ G ¼ ð20Þ

< 3 4r þ 4r

> for r 6 12 @t

_ _

W ðX XI Þ ¼ W ðrÞ ¼ 43 4r þ 4r 2 43 r 3 for 1

<r61 ð16Þ where q is the density of ﬂuid, v is the Darcy’s velocity vector of

>

:

2

0 for r > 1 ﬂuid ﬂow, G is the ﬂuid mass ﬂux from sink or source, n is the poros-

ity of soil mass and t is time.

(b) Quadratic spline(weight function (W4): In this derivation, the pore ﬂuid is considered to be water with

_ _ 1 6r 2 þ 8r 3 3r 4 for r 6 1 constant density. This assumption is the same as the incompress-

W ðX XI Þ ¼ W ðrÞ ¼ ð17Þ

0 for r > 1 ibility equation of solid–water mixture in Biot’s consolidation the-

e

ory [22]. Considering that sink or source term can be considered

(c) Exponential weight

( function (W ): later as a boundary condition, Eq. (20) is written in the following

2

_ _ eðr=aÞ for r 6 1 form.

W ðX XI Þ ¼ W ðrÞ ¼ ð18Þ

0 for r > 1

@n

r:ðv Þ ¼ ð21Þ

where a is constant (a = 0.3 has been recommended by Liu [2]). In @t

Eqs. (16)–(18), r = kX XIk/(Rid)I where kX XIk is the distance be- The soil deformation is governed by Terzaghi’s effective stress

tween the evaluation point and the node I and (Rid)I is the radius of principle.

the inﬂuence domain of the Ith node. These weight functions have

been tested and have proved to work very well for many applica-

Dr0ij ¼ Drij aDpdij ð22Þ

tions and have basically been adopted for various kinds of problems

[2]. where r is the effective stress tensor, a is Biot’s coefﬁcient (1 for

0

ij

MLS, which is originated by mathematicians for data ﬁtting and soils), Dp is the pore water pressure increment, and dij is kronecker

surface construction, is often termed local regression and loss [17]. delta.

Nayroles et al. [18] were the ﬁrst to use MLS procedure to construct The constitutive law for soil skeleton in incremental form is

shape functions for the Diffuse Element Method (DEM). DEM was written as

modiﬁed by Belytschko et al. [5], as the EFG method, where the

MLS approximation is also employed. The MLS approximation – 1

with a bell-shaped weight function – has two major features that

Dr0ij ¼ Dijkl ðDekl cs dkl DpÞ ð23Þ

3

make it popular: (1) the approximated ﬁeld function is continuous

where Dijkl is the soil skeleton stiffness matrix, Dekl is the total strain

and smooth in the entire problem domain; and (2) it is capable of

increment tensor, and cs is the compressibility of solid particles of

producing an approximation with the desired order of consistency.

soil.

One attractive property of the MLS approximants is that their con-

The constitutive relationship for water ﬂow in porous media is

tinuity is related to the continuity of the weight function; there-

Darcy’s law.

fore, a low order polynomial basis, e.g., a linear basis – which has

used in this study – can be used to generate highly continuous

p

approximations by choosing an appropriate weight function [5]. v i ¼ K ij zþ ð24Þ

c ;j

The shape functions of this method are global and can be used

all over the domain. where Kij is the permeability tensor of soil skeleton, z is the eleva-

Although the MLS approximation is both consistent and com- tion head, p is the pore water pressure, and c is the unit weight of

patible, the use of the MLS approximation produces shape function water.

that do not possess the Kronecker delta function property, which Boundary conditions for soil skeleton boundary and ﬂuid

implies that one cannot impose essential boundary conditions in boundary can be written as follows

the same way as in conventional FEM. In order to solve this prob-

lem, the penalty method proposed by Liu and Yang [19] is used in i

ui ¼ u on Cu ½0; 1Þ

this study to create constrained Galerkin weak form for imposing for soil skeleton boundary ð25Þ

rij nj ¼ ti on Ct ½0; 1Þ

essential boundary conditions. The use of the penalty method pro-

duces equation systems of the same dimensions such that the con-

p¼p on ½0; 1Þ

ventional FEM produces for the same number of nodes, and the for fluid boundary ð26Þ

modiﬁed stiffness matrix is still positive deﬁnite, banded, and sym-

v i ¼ v i on ½0; 1Þ

metric. The treatment of boundary conditions is as simple as it is in where ui is the displacement vector, u i is the boundary value of dis-

conventional FEM. However, the disadvantage of penalty method is placement, Cu is the displacement boundary, nj is the unit normal

the way of selection a suitable large positive number for each set of vector at the boundary, t i is the boundary value of traction, Ct is

the equations. the traction boundary, p is the pore pressure, p is the boundary va-

lue of pore pressure, Cp is the pore pressure boundary, vi is Darcy’s

3. Formulation velocity vector, v i is the boundary value of Darcy’s velocity, and Cv

is the velocity (ﬂux) boundary.

3.1. Strong and weak forms The initial conditions can be written as

For soil deformation–water ﬂow coupled problems, there are ui ¼ ui jt¼0 on X 0

ð27Þ

two sets of governing equations [20,21]: p ¼ pjt¼0 on X 0

where X is the domain.

(1) Equilibrium equation in incremental form

By applying the weighted residual method on Eq. (19) and

inserting Eqs. (22), (23), and (25) into Eq. (19), the following con-

Drij;j þ Dbi ¼ 0 ð19Þ

strained Galerkin weak form of the equilibrium equation is

where rij is the total stress tensor, and bi is the body force vector. obtained.

258 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266

R R R R

dðLDuÞT Dijkl Dekl dX X dðDuÞT Dbi dX Ct dðDuÞT Dt i dC þ X dðLDuÞT adij DpdX

X the Ith node. The procedure of constructing uI and its spatial deriv-

R R

X dðLDuÞT ð1=3Þcs Dijkl dkl DpdX d Cu ð1=2ÞðDu Du ÞT apu ðDu Du

ÞdC atives is given in Fig. 1.

R T Differential operator matrices L and Lp are given by

d Cs ð1=2ÞðDu þ Du Þ bpu ðDu

þ Du ÞdC ¼ 0

2 3

ð28Þ @=@x 0 0 @=@y 0 @=@z

6 7

where d(Du) is the test function, L is the differential operator, Du is

LT ¼ 4 0 @=@y 0 @=@x @=@z 0 5 ð33Þ

the incremental displacements, Du is the prescribed incremental 0 0 @=@z 0 @=@y @=@x

displacements on the essential boundary, apu is the penalty factor

for the weak form of equilibrium equation to penalize the difference LTp ¼ ½ @=@x @=@y @=@z ð34Þ

between the incremental displacements of the MLS approximation

and the prescribed incremental displacements on the essential By using Eqs. (31)–(34), the products of LDuh and LoDph become

boundary, Cs is the interface of the different materials in an inho- 2 3

uI;x 0 0

mogeneous body, Du þ and Du are the incremental displacements 6 0

6 uI;y 0 7 78 9

in the different materials but on the two sides of interfaces and n 6 7>

< DuxI >

= X

X 6 0 0 uI;z 7

7 n

bpu is the penalty factor for the weak form of equilibrium equation h

LDu ¼ 6 DuyI ¼ BI DuI ð35Þ

6u uI;x 0 7>7 >

to penalize the difference between Du þ and Du

. I 6 I;y : ; I

6 7 DuzI

According to the time domain discretization methods, the fol- 4 0 uI;z uI;y 5

lowing relation can be used for a ﬁeld function f in the time interval uI;z 0 uI;x

of [t, t + Dt]:

2 3

f ¼ ð1 hÞft þ hftþDt ¼ ft þ hDf ð29Þ uI;x

X

n

6u 7 X

n

Lp Dph ¼ 4 I;y 5DpI ¼ BpI DpI ð36Þ

where h can vary from zero (fully explicit scheme) to 1.0 (fully im- I

plicit scheme). The approximation is unconditionally stable when

uI;z I

h P 0:5, but for any value of h – 1 the numerical solution can exhi- where uI,x, uI,y, uI,z are the MLS shape function spatial derivatives of

bit a spurious rippling effect [12]. This time integration is applied to the Ith node.

Eq. (24). As Eq. (30) is discretized, app is a scalar, where as apu in Eq. (28)

By using the weighted residual method and inserting Eqs. (24) is a diagonal matrix of penalty factors.

and (26) into Eq. (21), the weak form for the continuity equation 2 3

of pore water is expressed as apux 0 0

R R R apu ¼ 6

4 0 apuy 7

0 5 ð37Þ

Cv dðDpÞT ðv i ni ÞdC þ T

X dðLp DpÞ ðK ij =cÞpt;j dX

K i3 dX þ X dðLp DpÞ

T

R T R T R

ÞT app ðDp Dp

þ X dðLp DpÞ hðK ij =cÞDp;j dX þ X dðDpÞ ð@n=@tÞdX d Cp ð1=2ÞðDp Dp ÞdC

0 0 apuz

R

d Cs ð1=2ÞðDp þ Dp ÞT bpp ðDp

þ Dp

ÞdC ¼ 0 The penalty factors can be functions of coordinates and they can

ð30Þ be different from each other, but in practice an identical constant

of a large positive number is assigned for each set of the equations

where d(Dp) is the test function, Lp is the differential operator, Dp is [19]. bpp and bpu have the same form of app and apu, but their values

the pore water pressure increment, Dp is the prescribed pore water may be different. The appropriate selection of the penalty factors is

pressure increment on the essential boundary, app is the penalty given in Oliaei et al. [13] for coupled soil deformation and pore

factor for the weak form of continuity equation to penalize the dif- ﬂuid ﬂow problems.

ference between the pore water pressure increment of MLS approx- Substituting Eqs. (31), (32), (35), and (37) into Eq. (28), the ﬁrst

imation and the prescribed pore water pressure increment on the system equation can be obtained for the equilibrium equation.

essential boundary, Cs is the interface of the different materials in Similarly, by substituting Eqs. (32) and (36) into Eq. (30), and with

an inhomogeneous body, Dp þ and Dp are the pore water pressure consideration of

increments in the different materials but on the two sides of inter- 8 9

faces and bpp is the penalty factor for the weak form of continuity > DuxI >

X

n

< = X

n

equation to penalize the difference between Dp þ and Dp . Dev ¼ uI;x uI;y uI;z DuyI ¼ C I DuI ð38Þ

I

>

: >

; I

DuzI

3.2. Numerical discretization

the second system equation can be obtained for the continuity

Displacement increments Du and pore water pressure incre- equation.

ment Dp at any time and at any point are approximated using These two equations constitute the ﬁnal system of discrete

Eq. (7) in Fig. 1. equations for the entire problem domain in the EFG method. These

equations should be solved simultaneously for a fully coupled

8 9h 2 38 9

< Dux >

> = X

n

uI 0 0 < DuxI >

> = X

n

analysis. The matrix equation in coupled form is therefore written

h 6 7 ð31Þ as

Du ¼ Duy ¼ 4 0 uI 0 5 DuyI ¼ UI DuI

>

: >

; > > " # ( )

Duz I

0 0 uI : DuzI ; I

K 11 þ K au þ K bu K 12 DU

DF u þ DF au

¼ ð39Þ

K 21 K 22 þ K ap þ K bp DP DF p þ DF ap

X

n

Dph ¼ /I DpI ð32Þ where DU and DP are the global displacement increments parame-

I

ter vector and the global pore pressure increment parameter vector,

where Duh is the approximated displacement increments, Dph is the respectively. K11, K12, K21 and K22 are the parts of global coefﬁcient

approximated pore water pressure increment, DuI is the displace- matrix. The non-diagonal terms in the matrix [K] of Eq. (39) repre-

ment increments of the Ith node, DpI is the pore water pressure sent the coupling terms in the analysis; K12 represents force

increment of the Ith node, n is the number of nodes in the neigh- induced by pore pressure and K21 represents ﬂuid ﬂow caused by

bourhood of the point of interest (Gauss point) which the point is the ground deformation. DFu and DFp are the global force incre-

in the inﬂuence domain of node, uI is the MLS shape function of ments vector and the global ﬂuid ﬂux increment vector,

M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266 259

respectively. They are the standard terms in the conventional soil– The procedure sequence for the numerical algorithm of the

water coupled problem derivations. developed EFG code is illustrated in Fig. 2.

In EFG method the nodal matrices and vectors can, in fact, be

viewed as the basic components for assembling the global matrices 3.3. Discontinuities in approximations

and vectors. It has been clearly shown that EFG method operates

on nodes, in contrast to the operation on elements in the FEM, With the use of node-based interpolation techniques, mesh-less

where the element matrices and vectors are the basic components methods offer great opportunities to handle problems of complex

for assembling. geometries. However, since there is no connectivity between

The nodal matrices and vectors for the above mentioned terms nodes, difﬁculties arise in determining the domain of inﬂuence of

can be written as a node. The inﬂuence domain usually takes a simple shape, for

Z

example circular, for simple geometries of problems. The inﬂuence

K 11ij ¼ BTi DBj dX ð40Þ of a node on any other point is directly computed by the distance

X

between the node and the point via the use of the weight functions

Z Z

such as Eq. (16) through Eq. (18). When a domain involves discon-

K 12ij ¼ BTi ð1=3Þcs Dm/j dX BTi am/j dX ð41Þ

X X

tinuities such as cracks, an inﬂuence domain may contain irregular

boundary fragments. Hence the computation of nodal weights sim-

Z

ply based on physical distance can be erroneous as the discontinu-

K 21ij ¼ /i C j dX ð42Þ

X

ity of the ﬁeld variables caused by the complex boundary is not

accounted for (Fig. 3).

Z

A number of techniques have been reported on the construction

K 22ij ¼ hDt BTpi ðK w =cÞBpj dX ð43Þ

X

of mesh-less approximation with discontinuities and nonconvex

boundaries. There are three typical methods: the visibility, diffrac-

Z Z

tion and transparency methods [16]. These methods have been

DF u i ¼ UTi DbdX þ UTi DtdC ð44Þ

X Ct used for deﬁning the proﬁle of the inﬂuence domain and comput-

ing the weight of inﬂuence in mesh-less approximations with

Z Z Z

irregular boundaries.

DF pi ¼ Dt BTpi K w3 dX Dt BTpi ðK w =cÞBpi pi dX Dt /i v Ti ni dC The visibility method is simple, but the weight function by vis-

X X Cv

ibility criterion is discontinuous within the inﬂuence domain

ð45Þ

around the tip of a discontinuity line. As a consequence the shape

where ‘m’ represents dij in a vector form i.e. functions constructed are also discontinuous, which is undesirable

m ¼ h 1 1 1 0 0 0 iT , Kw represents the permeability tensor in a mesh-less approximation. Moreover, the visibility criterion

and K Tw3 ¼ ½ 0 0 K z introduces the datum effect. In DF pi the ﬁrst may not be very easy to adapt to concave boundaries such as holes.

and second terms are the ﬂows due to changes in velocity, while The transparency method was developed to smooth a mesh-less

the third term indicates the effect of speciﬁed ﬂux on the approximation around the tip of a discontinuity line with a varying

boundaries. degree of transparency, from completely transparent at the tip of

In Eq. (39), K au and K ap are the global penalty matrices assembled discontinuity to completely opaque at a distance away from the

using the nodal penalty matrices, whereas DF au and DF ap are the glo- tip. As a consequence, the shape functions constructed are de-

bal penalty increments vectors assembled using the nodal penalty pended to degree of transparency, which is undesirable in a

increments vectors. The nodal matrices and vectors for these terms mesh-less approximation.

are deﬁned as follows. The diffraction method was used in the EFG code developed for

Z this study. The development of this method has been motivated by

K auij ¼ UTi apu Uj dC ð46Þ the way light diffracts around a sharp corner, such as crack tip, but

Cu

the equations used in constructing the domain of inﬂuence and the

Z weight function bear almost no relationship to the equations of dif-

K apij ¼ /i app /j dC ð47Þ fraction. This technique applies only to polar-type weight func-

Cp tions, such as Eq. (16) through Eq. (18), where the weights are

Z deﬁned as a function of a single distance-related weight parameter.

DF aui ¼ UTi apu Du dC ð48Þ The mechanism of the diffraction method is illustrated in Fig. 4,

Cu where the straight line represents a crack. By the diffraction meth-

Z od, the crack line is treated as opaque; therefore, the length of the

DF api ¼ /i app Dp

dC ð49Þ ray is evaluated by a path that passes around the crack tip. Accord-

Cp ing to Belytschko et al. [16], the weight parameter s associated

with point P is computed by

Furthermore, in Eq. (39), K bu and K bp are the global penalty matrices

assembled using the nodal penalty matrices in other to connect the k

s1 þ s2 ðxÞ

different materials in an inhomogeneous body. The nodal matrices sðxÞ ¼ s0 ðxÞ ð52Þ

s0 ðxÞ

for these terms are deﬁned as follows.

Z where s0, s1, and s2 are shown in Fig. 4, and k is a user-deﬁned

b T

K uij ¼ ½Uþi Ui bpu ½Uþj Uj dC ð50Þ parameter. The domain of inﬂuence is determined by the condition

Cs

that the weight function vanishes. As a result, the domain of inﬂu-

Z ence, as given by the criterion w(s) > 0, contracts around the crack

b

K pij ¼ ½/þi /i bpp ½/þj /j dC ð51Þ tip (see Fig. 4).

Cs

The diffraction method has been applied to nonconvex bound-

where /þ

i and /i are the shape functions created using the nodes in aries such as hole. Fig. 5 illustrates such an example, where the

different materials that have inﬂuence on the quadrature points parameter s is constructed from the lengths of two line segments

along the interfaces by a nonpenetration rule [23]. that just graze the boundary.

260 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266

Fig. 2. The procedure sequence for the numerical algorithm of the developed EFG code.

The major beneﬁt of the diffraction method is that the weight the EFG solution for soil deformation–ﬂuid ﬂow coupled problems.

function and shape function are continuous within the inﬂuence A summary of recommended parameters is listed in Table 1.

domain but are discontinuous across the crack line. The derivatives Then, the application of the developed EFG code to determine

of the shape function are multiple valued at the crack tip but this hydraulic fracture initiation pressure and to predict hydraulic frac-

should cause no difﬁculties. However, it results in the cost of lower ture propagation path in homogeneous and inhomogeneous satu-

efﬁciency in computing the derivatives of shape functions. Care rated soils will be conducted and complex interactions among

should also be exercised because when node and point are very ground deformation, ﬂuid ﬂow and fracturing process will be

close, i.e., s0(x) is close to zero, the weight parameter s becomes examined.

inﬁnite, causing difﬁculty in computation. Therefore, it is required

that all nodes have a minimum distance to the crack surface.

4.1. Prediction of hydraulic fracture propagation in saturated soils

4. Numerical results cemented soil sample for low permeability (undrained) and high

permeability (drained) conditions using tensile and shear criteria

Two examples were used to verify the developed EFG code. The is simulated. The maximum tensile strength criterion and Mohr–

ﬁrst example considered the numerical validity of the EFG mesh- Coulomb shear criterion are used for modelling tensile and shear

less method by solving fully coupled hydro-mechanical problem fracture, respectively. This example is designed to compare the

[24] and the second example evaluated the numerical capability EFG results with analytical, experimental and ﬁeld results and to

of the method to model discrete fracture growth in rock [25]. investigate the capability of the developed EFG code.

The last one was considered as an example of interaction between However, the shear criterion in the developed EFG code can pre-

ground deformation and fracturing process. dict very good the hydraulic fracture initiation pressure (similar to

To investigate the numerical stability and the desired level of tension criterion), using shear fracture criterion for modelling of

accuracy of the EFG solution for coupled hydro-mechanical prob- hydraulic fracture propagation in saturated soils by the developed

lems, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the numer- EFG code has been shown that the rate of extension in plastic shear

ical parameters that inﬂuence the solutions [13]. Based on the failure zone in the sample with respect to the rate of crack propa-

ﬁndings, the parameters are chosen to guarantee the accuracy of gation is extremely high; which means the shear band cannot

M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266 261

Fig. 2 (continued)

follow: The initial total outside and inside conﬁning pressures of

the sample r = 200 kPa, The initial pore pressure in the sample

P = 100 kPa, Young’s modulus E = 10 MPa and Poisson’s ratio

v = 0.45. The permeability is K = 1010 m/s for the low permeability

case and K = 105 m/s for the high permeability case. The borehole

radius is a = 1 cm and the dimension of the sample is W = 10 cm.

The tensile strength of cemented soil ðr0t rt Þ is 100 kPa. It is as-

sumed that the shear strength of the cemented soil is very large

compared to the tensile strength and hence the soil always fracture

in tension.

When the initial stresses on the homogeneous sample are iso-

tropic, increasing the pressure of the injected ﬂuid in the borehole

up to hydraulic fracture initiation pressure, causes tensile crack to

propagate from the borehole in any radial directions. However, in

reality, deformation around the borehole is not uniform and the

fracture initiates at a localized point or zone. Therefore, in this

Fig. 3. Highly irregular inﬂuence domain [2].

example, after fracturing, a microcrack (1 mm length) is considered

created properly. It coincides to the ﬁeld and laboratory test results at the borehole wall in positive x direction to initiate hydraulic

for boreholes in cemented soils which the propagation of tensile fracture propagation from this point due to hydraulic pressure

fracture is almost dominant with respect to shear fracture. There- and leak-off from crack and also borehole.

fore, tensile fracture criterion has been presented in this study. The nodal arrangement of the EFG model is shown in Fig. 7(a). It

consists of (i) a regular arrangement in the domain, (ii) a radial–

(i) Homogeneous soil tangential arrangement on the borehole wall, (iii) a radial arrange-

ment at the crack tip which is progressive with the crack tip [1]

Fig. 6 shows the geometry of the problem simulating laboratory and (iv) an arrangement on crack surfaces after propagation. The

testing of hydraulic fracturing. A plane strain analysis is arrangement of the background integration mesh is shown in

262 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266

Table 1

Guidelines to guarantee the accuracy of the EFG solution for coupled hydro-

mechanical problems [13].

2 2

h =ðcv DtÞ 6 2 for 1D, h =ðcv DtÞ 6 3 for 2D

612

app = 10 (K/c)

apu = 1048E

Dimension (radius) of inﬂuence domain = (1.25–1.75) average local diagonal

nodal spacing

Number of Gauss points = at least about 5 times the number of nodes

(It reﬂects the number of integration cells and the order of integration. These

two have to be balanced)

Type of weight function

Cubic spline weight function

Quadratic spline weight function

Exponential weight function (with constant parameter P 0:3Þ

Type of weight function has not much effect on results

Fig. 4. The diffraction method to determine the inﬂuence domain [2] (a) Deﬁnition

of parameters (b) Domain of inﬂuence.

Fig. 6. Geometry of the model for the problem of hydraulic fracture initiation

pressure determination and propagation path prediction.

end of each time step and the procedure will be repeated as men-

tioned above. Although a constant ﬂux is assumed around the

crack for simplicity, more investigation in this area is required to

study the effect of bulk ﬂuid ﬂow inside the crack.

The applied ﬂux on the borehole wall acts as traction on the

wall until the domain around the borehole reaches to tensile fail-

ure as shown in Fig. 8(a) for the low permeability soil case. The ex-

Fig. 5. The diffraction method applied to concave boundary [2].

cess pore pressure does not generate inside the domain and hence

the pore pressure in the domain is approximately constant over

Fig. 7(b). The Gauss points arrangement is 3 3 for each cell, ex- time as shown in Fig. 8(b). Therefore, it is essentially an undrained

cept in three rows and three columns in the middle of the model, cavity expansion in elastic medium. Using cylindrical cavity expan-

which is 5 5 for each cell. sion theory, the hydraulic fracture pressure for tensile fracture in

After applying initial stresses and pore pressures on the sample, undrained condition can be obtained as follows [26]:

a constant ﬂuid ﬂux is applied on the borehole wall such that the

Pf ¼ 2r3i u0 þ r0t ð53Þ

ﬂow rate to the borehole is Q = 1 109 m3/s. Nodal displacements

and nodal pore pressures are calculated in each time step; then the where Pf is hydraulic fracture pressure, r3i is initial applied mini-

pore pressure calculated on the borehole wall is applied as ﬂuid mum principle stress, u0 is initial pore pressure and r0t is tensile

traction on the borehole wall in the next time step together with strength of soil.

the constant ﬂux on the borehole wall. For the outer boundary, The fracture initiation pressure of the high permeability soil

the ﬂow boundary conditions are zero ﬂux for the low permeability case was smaller than that of the low permeability soil case as

(undrained) case and constant pressure (P = 100 kPa) for the high shown in Fig. 9(a). This is due to leak-off of ﬂuid to the soil sample

permeability (drained) case. After fracturing, constant ﬂux on the when the soil is permeable. The pore ﬂuid pressure around the

borehole wall and crack surfaces is applied in each time step. Then, borehole is increasing due to ﬂuid injection in the borehole as

M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266 263

200

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

time (s)

Fig. 8(b). The variation of pore pressure around the cavity due to ﬂuid injection for

undrained condition under tensile failure criterion.

400 H.F.

300

200

Fig. 7(a). Nodal arrangement of the EFG model (half of the model). 100

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

time (s)

Fig. 9(a). The variation of cavity surface traction due to ﬂuid injection for drained

condition under tensile failure criterion.

400

Pore Pressure (Kpa)

300

200

100

Fig. 7(b). The arrangement of the background integration mesh (a quarter of the

0

model). 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

time (s)

Undrained Condition - Tension Criterion Fig. 9(b). The variation of pore pressure around the cavity due to ﬂuid injection for

drained condition under tensile failure criterion.

Hydraulic Fracture Pressure (Kpa)

500

H.F.

400 pore pressure in the soil will cause tensile failure on the borehole

wall.

300

Bjerrum et al. [27] have evaluated hydraulic fracture pressure at

a cylindrical cavity in permeable soil to interpret the fracturing

200

conditions around a driven piezometer. Vertical cracks in the radial

100 direction from the piezometer develop when the circumferential

effective stress reduces to the negative sign of the tensile strength

0 of the soil. Hence, the hydraulic fracture pressure for tensile frac-

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

ture in drained condition can be obtained as follows:

time (s)

1

Pinj ¼ u0 þ 1 ½rt þ ð1 aÞr0h0 ð54Þ

Fig. 8(a). The variation of cavity surface traction due to ﬂuid injection for undrained v

condition under tensile failure criterion.

where Pinj is injection pressure, u0 is the initial pore pressure, v is

shown in Fig. 9(b), which reduces the effective stress of the soil. Poisson’s ratio, rt is the tensile strength, r0h0 is the initial horizontal

Increasing of the traction on the borehole wall together with the effective stresses and a is a disturbance factor for the changes in

264 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266

The comparison between hydraulic fracture initiation pressures for analytical 500

solutions and EFG results, using tensile failure (facture) criterion and under different Drained Condition

permeability (drainage) conditions (U: undrained, D: drained, T: tensile). Undrained Condition

400

Pf (kPa) EFG Analytical

U–T 425 400 300

D–T 323 344

200

100

Hydraulic Fracture Pressure (Kpa)

0

450 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

X (m)

440

Fig. 11. The ﬂuid pressure variation along the crack axis and in the time step before

430 the last time step for tensile failure criterion.

420

350

400

51 52 53 54 55 300

time (s)

250

Fig. 10(a). Fluid pressure at crack entrance during hydraulic fracture propagation 200 t=264

for undrained condition under tensile failure criterion. t=272

150

t=280

100

Drained Condition - Tension Criterion

Hydraulic Fracture Pressure (Kpa)

50

350

0

340 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

X (m)

330

Fig. 12(a). The pore pressure in domain during hydraulic fracture propagation (I

320 axis) for drained condition under tensile failure criterion.

310

264 266 268 270 272 274 276 278 280 350

time (s) 300

Pore Pressure (Kpa)

Fig. 10(b). Fluid pressure at crack entrance during hydraulic fracture propagation 250

for drained condition under tensile failure criterion. t=264

200

t=272

150

t=280

circumferential effective stress due to piezometer installation. a 100

varies between 0.4 and 1.1 based on soil compressibility.

50

The comparison of hydraulic fracture initiation pressure for

analytical/semi-analytical solutions and EFG results, using tensile 0

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

failure (fracture) criterion and under different permeability (drain-

age) conditions, are presented in Table 2. The computed fracturing X (m)

pressures are obtained from Fig. 8(a) and 9(a), whereas the theo-

Fig. 12(b). The pore pressure in domain during hydraulic fracture propagation (J

retical values are calculated from Eqs. (53) and (54). The EFG re- axis) for drained condition under tensile failure criterion.

sults are very good agreement with closed form analytical

solutions.

Figs. 10(a) and 10(b) shows the ﬂuid pressure at node A – Fig. 7 for the high permeability soil case, there is pore pressure gradient

– during HF propagation for low and high permeability soil cases. due to inﬁltration of ﬂuid from crack to the surrounding material.

Node A is separated into nodes A1 and A2 at the entrance of crack The progress of inﬁltration (leak-off) is illustrated in Figs. 12(a)–(c)

after fracturing. The ﬁgure shows variation of ﬂuid pressure during in which the pore pressures along the three lines (I, J and K) in

hydraulic fracture propagation until reaching to the outer bound- Fig. 7(a) are plotted at three different times (at the beginning of

ary of the sample. The propagation of crack is faster and takes place crack propagation or crack initiation, at the middle of crack propa-

under higher stresses in low permeability soil than in high perme- gation and at the end of crack propagation) for darined case. As ex-

ability soil. pected, the pore pressure is rising with time and the magnitude of

Fig. 11 shows the ﬂuid pressure variation inside the crack, along the increase is greater at locations close to the crack axis and the

the crack propagation axis at one step before the crack reaches to borehole.

the outer boundary. For the low permeability soil case, the ﬂuid

pressure is approximately constant along the crack axis, whereas (ii) Heterogeneous soil

M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266 265

Drained Condition - Tension Criterion selected to be 0.001 times of its Young’s modulus. The conﬁning

350 pressures for this problem are as the same as the homogeneous soil

300 in (i). The initial nodal arrangement of the EFG model is shown in

Pore Pressure (Kpa)

250

(progressive with the crack position) and also an arrangement on

200 t=264 crack surfaces after crack propagation are added after fracturing

t=272 takes place. The arrangement of the background integration mesh

150

t=280 is 10 10, and the Gauss points arrangement is 5 5 for each cell.

100 The hydraulic fracture propagation path for the heterogeneous

50 soil problem is presented in Fig. 14 by white triangular markers.

After hydraulic fracture initiation, the crack propagates from the

0

borehole towards the weaker layers. During crack propagation,

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

when the crack reaches to a new layer, crack deviates from the pre-

X (m)

vious path. The amount of deviation depends on the difference be-

Fig. 12(c). The pore pressure in domain during hydraulic fracture propagation (K tween characteristic parameters (strength and stiffness) of two

axis) for drained condition under tensile failure criterion. different layers. When the crack reaches to a very stiff layer with

high strength, the crack cannot propagate through this layer and

it grows parallel to the layer toward the outer boundary.

5

4

E = 50 MPa 5. Conclusions

E = 30MPa

3

In this paper, the details of the Element Free Galerkin (EFG)

2 mesh-less method and its numerical implementation have been

presented to study the hydraulic fracture initiation and propaga-

1 tion using coupled hydro-mechanical numerical modelling in geo-

E = 20MPa

0

technical engineering. EFG is an effective method to approximate

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 and numerically determine the ﬁeld variables (displacement and

-1 pore water pressure). Unlike other mesh-less methods, the EFG

has a simple approach for construction of shape functions and its

-2

spatial derivatives. This is due to nature of its polynomial basis

-3

E = 5MPa and weight function. The weak forms are developed through a glo-

bal equilibrium at each time-step using the coupled expression.

E = 10MPa -4

Essential boundary conditions can be easily implemented using

-5 penalty method. A fully implicit scheme in time domain is used

to achieve stability and accuracy and avoid spurious ripple effect.

E = 100MPa

The validity, feasibility and capability of the EFG method are illus-

Fig. 13. Geometry of the model for the problem of prediction of hydraulic fracture trated by examples of hydraulic fracture initiation and propagation

propagation path in inhomogeneous domain. in saturated soils.

While the EFG method is attractive in many problems because

of the simplicity of discretization (only nodes in and on boundaries

are needed) and avoidance of post-processing (results are already

smooth), its greatest appeal is in problems with large change in

geometry, such as progressive fracture, where ﬁnite element meth-

ods require considerable remeshing. Hence, by using the EFG

method, the arbitrary discrete fracture path can be simulated

elegantly.

Finally, the involved ﬂuid response in crack is hard to describe,

i.e. around the crack tip. Although a constant ﬂux is assumed in this

paper around the crack for simplicity, more investigation in this

area is required to study the effect of bulk ﬂuid ﬂow inside the

crack. Research is currently under way by the authors.

References

methods. Eng Fract Mech 1995;51(2):295–315.

[2] Liu GR. Mesh Free Methods-Moving beyond the ﬁnite element method 2003.

CRC Press.

[3] Lucy L. A numerical approach to testing the ﬁssion hypothesis. Astron J

Fig. 14. The prediction of hydraulic fracture propagation path in inhomogeneous 1977;82:1013–24.

domain. [4] Gingold RA, Monaghan JJ. Smooth particle hydrodynamics: theory and

applications to non-spherical stars. Mon Not R Astron Soc 1977;181:375–89.

[5] Belytschko T, Lu YY, Gu L. Element free Galerkin methods. Int J Numer Meth

Eng 1994;37:229–56.

Fig. 13 shows the geometry of the heterogeneous soil. Tensile [6] Liu GR, Gu YT. A point interpolation method. In: Proc. 4th Asia-Paciﬁc

fracture criterion was adopted in high permeability soil. The do- conference on computational mechanics, Singapore; December, 1999. p. 1009–

14.

main consists of six types of materials having a range of stiffnesses [7] Modaressi H, Aubert P. Element-free Galerkin method for deforming

from 5 MPa to 100 MPa. The tensile strength of each layer is multiphase porous media. Int J Numer Meth Eng 1998;42:313–40.

266 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266

[8] Murakami A, Kawabata H, Aoyama S. EFGM analysis for saturated soil. In: [17] Lancaster P, Salkauskas K. Surfaces generated by moving least squares

Desai CS, et al., editors. Computer methods and advances in geomechanics, vol. methods. Math Comput 1981;37:141–58.

1; 2001. p. 153–6. [18] Nayroles B, Touzot G, Villon P. Generalizing the ﬁnite element method: diffuse

[9] Murakami A, Arimoto S. Localized behaviour of saturated soil via element-free approximation and diffuse elements. Comput Mech 1992;10:307–18.

strategy. In: Proc. 12th Asian regional conference on soil mechanics and [19] Liu GR, Yang KY. A penalty method for enforce essential boundary conditions

geotechnical engineering, 1, Balkema; 2003. p. 925–8. in element free Galerkin method. In: Proc. 3rd HPC Asia’98, Singapore; 1998. p.

[10] Arimoto S, Murakami A, Setsuyasu T, Nishiyama T. Numerical analysis of 715–21.

saturated soil by EFG within ﬁnite strains. Trans JSME 2004;70(691):442–8. in [20] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Englewood Cliffs,

Japanese. N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1982. p. 114–94 [chapter 4].

[11] Murakami A, Setsuyasu T, Arimoto S. Mesh-free method for soil-water coupled [21] Thomas GW. Principles of Hydrocarbon Reservoir simulation. Tabir Publishers;

problem within ﬁnite strain and its numerical validity. Soils Found 1977.

2005;45(2):145–54. [22] Biot MA. General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. J Appl Phys

[12] Wang JG, Liu GR, Lin P. Numerical analysis of Biot’s consolidation process by 1941;12:155.

radial point interpolation method. Int J Solids Struct 2002;39:1557–73. [23] Liu GR, Yang KY. A new meshless method for stress analysis for solids and

[13] Oliaei M, Soga K, Pak A. Some numerical issues using Element Free Galerkin structure. In: Proc. 4th Asia-Paciﬁc conference on computational mechanics,

mesh-less method for coupled hydro-mechanical problems. Int J Numer Anal Singapore; 1999.

Meth Geomech 2009;33(7):915–38. [24] Gibson RE, Schiffman RL, Pu SL. Plane strain and axially symmetric

[14] Lim IL, Johnston IW, Choi SK. A ﬁnite element code for fracture propagation consolidation of a clay layer on a smooth impervious base. Q J Mech Appl

analysis within elasto-plastic continuum. Eng Fract Mech Mech 1970;23(4):505–20.

1996;53(2):193–211. [25] Ingraffea AR. Theory of crack initiation and propagation in rock. In: Atkinson

[15] Belytschko T, Lu YY, Gu L, Tabbara M. Element free Galerkin methods for static BK, editor. Fracture mechanics of rock. Academic Press Geology Series; 1987.

and dynamic fracture. Int J Solids Struct 1995;32(17–18):2547–70. [26] Mitchell JK, Soga K. Fundamentals of soil behaviour. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons,

[16] Belytschko T, Krongauz Y, Organ D, Fleming M, Krysl P. Meshless methods: an Inc; 2005.

overview and recent developments. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng [27] Bjerrum L, Nash JKTL, Kennard RM, Gibson RE. Hydraulic fracturing in ﬁeld

1996;139:3–47. permeability testing. Geotechnique 1972;22(2):319–32.

- edp-numTransféré parHamza Ait Hou
- 2013 Geomechanical Principles for Unconventional ResourcesTransféré parNagaraju Jalla
- FEP_2nd_Edition_4th_Printing.pdfTransféré parIsaí Tuc
- FEMMTransféré parShah Khan
- Closure of Natural Fractures SPE-153609-MS-PTransféré parFernando Arteaga Pinto
- Dual-Norm Least-Squares Finite Element Methods for Hyperbolic ProblemsTransféré parDelyan Kalchev
- FAQs OF FEMTransféré parUmer Farooq
- Stabilized Finite Element Methods by StokesTransféré parEnriqueGD
- If EmTransféré parapi-3700440
- homework2.docxTransféré parAlisa Maria
- Damage ToleranceTransféré parcal2_uni
- Connor DissertationTransféré parbug
- MD Nastran 2010 EFEA User GuideTransféré parMSC.Software
- BeFo Rapport 124 WebTransféré pargeology01
- Paper3Transféré pardiego
- Coke Drum Failure Mechanism and Life Assessment ResearchTransféré parash1968
- 7 Papanastasiou P Hydraulic fracturing.pdfTransféré parRabindraSubedi
- HF NOTESTransféré parRamanamurthy Palli
- Bucky Leverett SolutionTransféré parSaddy Khan
- 6255.pdfTransféré parMuhammad Afridho
- 388 GC2013 Hydraulic Fracture Energy ConsiderationsTransféré paralizareiforoush
- Bai and Pollard 2000 (Closely Spaced Fractures)Transféré parjosbmmontiel
- MAK539EChapter3Transféré parGökhan Günay
- mavor1994Transféré parPablo Chinchilla
- isarc2000-159_WB2Transféré parandysupa
- 5.MASAT 2012-2013 AhmadShellTransféré parCesar Sala
- 3-540-32613-8_BookBackMatter_1Transféré parKaturah M Hansen
- Análisis Numérico de Liquidación de la Fundación Bridge Pile Group.pdfTransféré parAaron Arango Ayala
- 9Transféré parBoonme Chinnaboon
- JoshiReport1Transféré parAnkit Joshi

- A Novel Method Crack Detection Beam Like Structures Measurements Natural FrequenciesTransféré parJosé Luis García Contreras
- Finite Element Simulations of Wave Propagation in Soils Using a Viscoelastic ModelTransféré parJosé Luis García Contreras
- Articulo 2 Microestructura 3Transféré parJosé Luis García Contreras
- A Probabilistic Damage Detection Approach Using Vibration Based Non Destructive TestingTransféré parJosé Luis García Contreras

- Senao NCB-8610-UsersManual-V2-1_20070618Transféré parGoran Djole Stojanovic
- תכנון מיקרו מעבדים- הרצאה 2Transféré parRon
- Gcc Lab Manual2Transféré pararungladston
- CutOver Plan Upgrade TEMPLATETransféré parEnoely Guimarães Caetano
- Identification Of Acute Appendicitis Using Euclidean Distance On Sonographic ImageTransféré parDr. R. BALU
- PAT ANSYSTransféré parzugabere
- Algebra, FactoringTransféré parCAROL_X1
- proformaTransféré parxxxangelitoxxx
- Proposal SeTransféré parTan Cheng Peng
- ISB analyticsTransféré parNamit Gaur
- 2-Microsoft Excel MCQsTransféré parNazyah Mehdi
- knowledge , Management, and KnowledgeManagement in Business OperationsTransféré parswweetypatel
- Introduction to Oracle ApplicationsTransféré parmamidilk
- Fuzzy Arithmetic With and Without Using Alpha CutTransféré parGanesan Kandasamy
- Hero MotoCorpTransféré parKumar Somil
- Euclid AlgTransféré parscribrrrr
- Most FootprintTransféré parCaroline Netto
- ARM Processor Asczsignment(1)Transféré pardelinquent_abhishek
- Curve TracingTransféré parshardaharyani
- NF3250K8AA&NF3250G-EN-V1.1Transféré parstenacom
- Highline Excel 2016 Class 20 Clean Transform & Import Excel Workbook Data With Power QueryTransféré parene
- Lodgistix Lesson 1Transféré parjonsutz
- Salesforce Extension Installation and Configuration GuideTransféré parshivani_rubi
- Group Technology and Cellular Manufacturing-ITransféré parsiva_karthidpm
- Process MappingTransféré parMiguel
- 5 Hocevar Jaklic FinalTransféré parRaghuram Seshabhattar
- MSS - Chp 2 - Linear Programming Modeling Model Formulation and Graphical SolutionTransféré parMahmood Al Marzouqi
- Práctica 7Transféré parItzzy Prin
- CE205_Lec1Transféré parAlvin Jan Yap
- PVS Administrators Guide 6.0Transféré parPeter Lebib Smali